Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weasels in fiction


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Weasels in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:GNG. The references cited do not amount to significant coverage. Apparently created in an attempt to reinforce the notability of List of fictional weasels, which has also been nominated for deletion. Gobonobo T C 05:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Since neither source is specifically about weasels in fiction this looks like a violation of WP:SYNTH. Spartaz Humbug! 06:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both sources have the word weasel in their title and the second of them is entirely about fiction too. This is therefore highly specific.
 * Ha ha ha ha! That's almost classic SYNTH. Spartaz Humbug! 06:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While that is a classic WP:VAGUEWAVE. What is the synthetic proposition advanced here?  Please state this and explain how the article goes beyond the sources supplied.  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable as demonstrated by the sources. The other article is irrelevant per WP:WAX. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * incidental sources that briefly discuss a subject in the context of something else do not confer wiki notability. I realise that you have your own version of what should be in wikipedia but it would be nice to see the occasional AFD argument that actually chimed with policy. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:N is not a policy and so this point is also counterfactual. That guideline gives as an example of trivial passing coverage, a one sentence mention of an unrelated topic in a biography of Bill Clinton.  We clearly have more substantial sourcing than this here and, given that our  topic is a newly created stub, there is no evidence that further detailed sources are lacking.  The relevant policy here is WP:IMPERFECT which specifically encourages us to support the creation of modest stubs and to develop them further.  Our policy also enjoins us to preserve respectable sourced material rather than to delete it.  Policy-based argument therefore clearly refutes your position which seems to be just WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a strong dash of WP:ADHOM.  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONUS its for you to prove the sources exist, not for us to prove that they don't. You can't prove a negative with sources anyway. Can you provide detailed sources that discuss weasels in literature? Concerning your second point, N is a very strong guidelines and is close to policy and, in any event, I used policy in a general sense. Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We have two good sources already which are quite satisfactory to support the points made in the article. There is not the slightest policy-based reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * *cough* it appears that only you hold that view. Don't you find it worrying that after making so many contributions to deletion debates that you still haven't got a clue about how to evaluate notability through sources? Spartaz Humbug! 12:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly worries me.   Snotty Wong   speak 14:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No, every permutation of a possible combination is not notable. Google books makes finding reliable sources much easier but also makes it easier to find permutations of random nouns (not even really much of a permutation here). Peaches in fiction could easily get a bunch of keyword hits from James and the Giant Peach alone, and probably a lot more from smut, but that doesn't guarantee inclusion. This article uses the example of one work, with two sources, one of them is a scientific discussion about weasels, and the other is actually about "Goblins, Morlocks, and weasels: classic fantasy and the Industrial Revolution." And lest you think we've left this topic under-covered we have List of fictional weasels which appears to be in no danger of leaving us. If this AfD passes then the Morlocks in fiction article is due. Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Morlock which covers that topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, yes. Morlocks are a fictional race of humans in the far future and so there are no real ones, as there are with weasels. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The two refs are easily dealt with in appropriate articles. Delete as not notable and per WP:NOT. Also WP:SYNTH per Spartaz. Verbal chat  07:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - topic really hasn't received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Colonel Warden has a history of creating articles in order to advance his line of argument in AFD debates - in this case the AFD for List of fictional weasels - and while this in itself is not a reason to delete, when compounded with the complete lack of significant coverage of the topic and WP:SYN issues, this is a clear candidate for deletion. Claritas § 08:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - I see no indication that CW created the List of Weasels article. That said, it's at AfD now. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see no notable references to the concept in general - finding references to examples of individual fictional weasels and constructing a general article from those is Synthesis. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources provided address the concept in general and do not dwell on any particular fictional weasel. Your argument is therefore counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I meant was "finding examples of individual fictional weasels..." - amended above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the excellent delete arguments above. I'll also add that this is a sad and pointless attempt to legitimize this. Reyk  YO!  09:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * delete - Apparently a bad-faith, pointy creation by Warden, which is about par for the course. WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists like this are simply not encyclopedic material, like the "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" example from WP:SALAT . WP:SYNTH seems the way to go for this one. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is not called a list and does not list particular weasels. You do not seem to have read the article - how was your vote canvassed? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Canvassed? There is only one organized AfD voting block on Wikipedia. Reyk  YO!  19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a list, it looks like I was in haste this morning and pasted text here meant for the other dumb weasel AfD. As for canvassing...er, no.  I occasionally look at the day's XfD discussions and participate in ones that look interesting. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article was created solely in an attempt to prop up List of fictional weasels while it is at AfD.   Snotty Wong   yak 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Spartaz Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.